Читать книгу Anti-utopian Mood, Liminality, and Literature - Irma Ratiani - Страница 11
ОглавлениеChapter One Literary Anti-Utopia and the General Trends of Its Development
The importance of anti-utopia as a form of thinking for 20th-century literature and art could be described as one of the most determinant models for 20th-century aesthetics.
What is anti-utopia and what are the theoretical and methodological aspects of interpreting it? What are the genre-defining parameters of anti-utopia and how are they realized in literary text? Is it possible or not to highlight the chronotopic categories in the context of literary anti-utopia?
The questions outlined above are rather timely for modern literary studies, and settling those problems will shed light on the researches dealing with 20th-century anti-utopian novel.
One aspect should be put forward: the anti-utopian model of thinking is closely linked with the utopian model. This is why I gain an in-depth understanding of the problem deeply which we are facing; in the first part, it would be correct to define the concept of “Utopia” and to comment on it from the point of view that will be rather interesting for us.
1.1. Utopia. Ou Topos or Eu Topos?
M. I. Finley States:
Utopian ideas and fantasies, like all ideas and fantasies, grow up as well as other ideas and fantasies, grow out of the society to which they are a response. Neither the ancient world nor the modern world is an unchanging entity, and any analyses of Utopian thinking which neglects social changes in the course of the history of either antiquity or modern times is likely at some point to go badly wrong. (Finley 1967: 33)
Utopia is a social fantasy, imagined social ideal, whose illusionary model established in the antique epoch in European thinking found its way to development in the context of world social-cultural processes, and starting from the Middle Ages, it played an important role in the history of public life.
The beginning of utopia can be found in the mythological past. Discussing the genesis of utopia, Robert C. Elliot quotes Arthur Koestler: All Utopias, – writes Arthur Koestler, – are fed from the sources of mythology; the social engineer’s blueprints are merely revised editions of the ancient text (Elliot 1970: 3). The ←15 | 16→God Cronos and the “Golden Age” can be considered as the mythological archetype of utopia.
Cronus was the leader and the youngest of the first generation of Titans, divine descendants of Gaia, the earth, and Uranus, the sky. As Georgian scholar Rismag Gordeziani describes it, “according to the myths, Cronus fought against his father, who oppressed his children, and by using the sickle cut off the limb of fertility” (Gordeziani 1997: 16). After overthrowing his father, Cronus became the ruler of the world:
During the times of Cronus men were born and were bred. They lived carelessly. Mother Earth gave them such riches that they did not have to worry about frost, or heat, diseases or wisdom. People at those times did not know what death was; they lived for ages and death was nothing but transformation. As in dreams, they disappeared and would become kind demons dwelling in the world. Their lives did not request laws or dreadful wars, as well as arguments. They had everything they wanted and worked as much as they wanted. During the times of Cronus people were happy. That is why they are often called people of the Golden Age. (Gordeziani 1997: 23)
Cronus learned from Gaia and Uranus that he was destined to be dethroned by his own sons, just as he had overthrown his father. As a result, although he sired the gods Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades and Poseidon by Rhea, he devoured them all as soon as they were born, to pre-empt the prophecy. Zeus, was the only one surviving his father’s punishment, was fatal for Cronus: He overthrew his father and became the ruler of the living and the dead.
The myth is a clear example of the duality of Cronus’ character: On the one hand, Cronus was an ideal ruler, King, during whose reign humans knew nothing about fear, sorrow or pain and gave them perfect conditions to live in; on the other hand, he was a villain, the one who castrated his own father and ate his children for only one purpose: to gain autocratic rule. The iconography of Cronus is complex, possessing both positive and negative symbolism, while on the positive side we have realized dreams, and on the negative side, we have the brutal efforts made to achieve this kind of utopia.
What was the fate of the positive and negative motives constructed in the ancient myth? How each of them found realization in literature?
The positive idea of a utopian society depicted in the myth of Cronus has been successfully used by the writers and thinkers of the ancient era. Hesiod’s “Works and Days” can be considered as an archetypal text, where the author outlined the ideal side of Cronus’ character and offered the model of Golden Age literature to the contemporary society:
←16 | 17→
First of all [110] the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods [115] without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things, [120] rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0020,002:121
The Golden Age depicted in Hesiod’s work can be regarded as the first utopian text. But not only did Hesiod write about the Golden Age, but his main aim was to compare it to his contemporary society and perceived future as the demolition of the past idyll:
[174] Thereafter, would that I were not among the men of the fifth generation, [175] but either had died before or been born afterwards. For now truly is a race of iron, and men never rest from labor and sorrow by day, and from perishing by night; and the gods shall lay sore trouble upon them. But, notwithstanding, even these shall have some good mingled with their evils. [180] And Zeus will destroy this race of mortal men also when they come to have grey hair on the temples at their birth. The father will not agree with his children, nor the children with their father, nor guest with his host, nor comrade with comrade; nor will brother be dear to brother as aforetime. [185] Men will dishonor their parents as they grow quickly old, and will carp at them, chiding them with bitter words, hard-hearted they, not knowing the fear of the gods. They will not repay their aged parents the cost of their nurture, for might shall be their right: and one man will sack another’s city. [190] There will be no favor for the man who keeps his oath or for the just or for the good; but rather men will praise the evil-doer and his violent dealing. Strength will be right, and reverence will cease to be; and the wicked will hurt the worthy man, speaking false words against him, and will swear an oath upon them.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0020,002:180
Where does the utopian idyll of Cronos disappear? Why is the positive system replaced by the negative one?
These principal questions go unanswered in the work of Hesiod, but the desire of repeating the Golden Age found its place in the romantic spirit of humans. “Utopian Harmony”, which was based on the total understanding between human and nature, human and God, became the symbol of eternal beauty, justice, and equality. The intellectual concept of utopia continued its existence and Republic by Plato is a clear example of this.
The civil order represented in the Republic by Plato is influenced by the utopian order of the Golden Age. The society constructed in Republic, with its organized structure, ruled by philosophers-kings, executive officials and guards, ←17 | 18→the everyday regulations, clearly depicts the utopian vision of the Hellenistic philosophy.
In the ideal town, according to Plato, ideal laws should exist: Every citizen should do what they are good at; humans should coexist peacefully and divide property equally. The ideal state of Plato has four main counterpoints: wisdom, bravery, justice and providence. Plato believes that only through the combination of these four parts can an ideal state emerge, whose main aim will be not to make one part of society but to make the create one, whole, happy state. We are modelling a state in our vision, which is fortunate by being united (http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf).
Despite this attempt, there was a great dilemma that Plato faced: In his ideal state, Plato is unable to fully identify the methods and laws that would root out corruption or depravity. Why seems the appropriate question to pose in this case. To elucidate this issue, we should be wise to delve into the term “Utopia” and its etymology and its ambiguous relation toward the categories of time and space.
In Book IV of Republic while discussing the model of an ideal state, Plato puts forward the understanding of utopia, by which inculcates the talk over utopia in both philosophy and literature. What does “Utopia” mean? “Utopia” is an equivocal word game: “Ou Topos” meaning “Non-existing place”, “Eu Topos” – “Good place”. From the point of view of time-spatial parameters, two different concepts are being unified: On the one hand, it is associated with fantasy that stretches beyond imagination, and on the other hand, it is the attempt to practically realize the “Good place”. From these two conceptually different understanding of “Utopia”, Plato sees the second one superior to the first and that is why he fails, the central problem of the classical meaning of “Utopia” (Plato’s Republic and Plutarch’s Parallel Lives). The crucial problem was that the utopian theories of these thinkers were more like possible projects in the real time-space parameters than a “non-existent place” existing in unreal time and space coordinates. Hesiod’s warning seems to be neglected. In his work “Works and Days”, he clearly indicated that the ideal Golden Age was pre-historic – “In illo tempore” – wrote Hesiod, thus stressing that the Golden Age stands aside of history and time. To put his concept in other words, for him the ideal world or Arcadia is a non-temporal, permanent and infinite existence. Hesiod places utopia out of the bounds of reality, as he is well aware that an idyll is non-realizable and extra temporal, and trans-historic dreams are always overcome by reality; any type of government is susceptible to the rule of historic changes and man can never free himself from its negative origins – Caesar’s world is real.
The Middle Age concept of “Utopia” is completely different from the classic understanding of this term, and the contra-variant comprehension can be ←18 | 19→regarded as the basis of this interpretation. From the ambivalent game of words, the “New Utopists” excluded its meaning of being a “Good place” and gave it the trait of “Non-existing place”. Therefore, it could be argued that the utopia of the Middle Ages and Renaissance not only altered the classic Utopia, but essentially changed the essence of the concept of utopia.
What provoked the decision of Thomas More and his contemporary utopists? Why did utopia emerge as a literary model representing a “non-existing, ideal society”?
Europe in the Middle Ages was actively involved in travelling. Brave sailors fearlessly crossed seas and oceans in the hope of finding new lands, uncovering unknown civilizations and enriching their culture from the experience gained from such voyages. Each new discovery served not only as a source of development for the human mind, but also as a bridgehead for the realization of possibilities. “New Utopia” is the logical result of the “New World”, the child of Europe, which at that time was stepped in Renaissance traditions and reformative politics. The enlargement of boundaries became a good subsistence for utopist and idealist thinkers and that is why many literary-utopian texts emerged at one and the same time: Thomas More – “Utopia”, Tommaso Campanella – “The City of the Sun” and Francis Bacon – “New Atlantis”. These utopias did not exist on geographical maps, but instead they were in the authors’ imagination, and intentionally or unintentionally were compared to real-life models.
As Krishan Kumar puts it, on the one hand, More discusses the wise and holy organizations of the utopians, which is able to govern the state with hardly any laws, but with such success, that even God approves it; on the other I am trying to compare the utopian traditions to other nations, who fail to achieve order; utopia, the powerful island, was able to develop its coarse and savage citizens on such stage of culture and education that everybody envies them (Kumar 1991). The happiness of the island-dwellers lies in their religious faith, care for their souls and love toward God. Thomas More created the ideal model of “non-existing reality” and founded the literary genre of utopia. The tradition of More was successfully continued by the Italian philosopher Tommaso Campanella and the English philosopher Francis Bacon. In Tommaso Campanella’s ‘ideal state’, conscience finds peace, greed is being destroyed – that arises evil, lies, and stealing, poverty, rudeness, extra problems, labor, money, pride, and other destructive habits should be annihilated, that is the result of mind-splitting in human nature. The Sun City of Campanella is a unity of diligent citizens and each person practices the job for which he shows the greatest aptitude. Those workers who are required to expend greater effort, such as artisans and builders, receive more praise. The Sun City of Campanella is governed by a priest and along with ←19 | 20→him power, wisdom and love rule: “The great ruler among them is a priest whom they call by the name Hoh, though we should call him Metaphysic. He is head overall, in temporal and spiritual matters, and all business and lawsuits are settled by him, as the supreme authority” (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2816/2816-h/2816-h.htm). The City represents the embodiment of human intellect, science and art. As Krishan Kumar puts it, Tommaso Campanella added a scope of scientific thought to the religious legacy left by Thomas More, but Francis Bacon suggested an extraordinary synthesis of religion and science:
Francis Bacon had made the necessary adjustment by an extraordinary synthesis of Christianity and science. Drawing on the magical and alchemical tradition, Bacon sought to fuse orthodox Christian conceptions of original sin with decidedly unorthodox views of its overcoming… As ‘the proud knowledge of good and evil’ had brought about the fall of man, so, Bacon argued, ‘the pure knowledge of nature and universality’ would lead to man’s recovery of his original command over the creation. (Kumar 1991: 29)
Bacon developed the idea on the thing how humans should reinforce mankind by their knowledge, not only the chosen ones, but to the whole society in general. The collectivist pathos was caused by the English revolution and by the nostalgic look back in the past, where there was the imaginary Golden Age and paradise that was lost in the present. The scientific theory in utopian work by Bacon – “New Atlantis” brought about changes in the understanding of the term “ ‘Utopia”: The philosophy of Bacon determined the course of the following epoch (17th–18th centuries) when the utopian thinking having scientific or pragmatic nature was brought together with real life. The idea of scientific progress added a scope of practicality and utilitarianism to utopia, transforming it from “non-existing place” to the “good place”.
The continuing progress of scientific revolution made it clear that the ideas discussed by Bacon could be realized. The bound, static and ascetic utopia suggested by Plato and More finds dynamic philosophic-literary transformation, in a literary, artistic or specific artistic-aesthetic form, which shows the significant social, economic and scientific changes of that period. The representatives of the “New World” thought that human abilities were inexhaustible and believed that the attempt of a group of educated and erudite citizens could alter the world. Sooner or later, scientific inspiration would enlighten each individual, and individual genius would integrate with collective thought. The aspiration for scientific progress in utopian thinking, strictly knitted itself with historic progress, “Good place” became united with “Good time”: The new discoveries carried out by travelers or geographers reduced the probability of ←20 | 21→detecting “Ideal land”, the geographical map that was nearly uncovered left not much hope for finding “Terra incognita”. From now on utopian space should be understood in the frames of defined time. This concept was well absorbed by the French social-utopists Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier and the English social-utopist Robert Owen and their radical teachings are an example of this. Social utopists believed that the concept of the enriching or destructing historic periods existed, highlighting the fact that after wrecking periods better times come. Therefore, each historical process is more or less progressive. The idea of continuing progress would strengthen the faith of realizing utopia. The naive social structures depicted in classic or medieval utopian texts are being radically changed by the social diversity that had arisen after the industrial revolution. According to social utopists, the destruction of social classes was believed to be the main condition to attain utopia. Human was considered as a socially active phenomenon, which was able to carry out progress. For Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and other utopists, history prepared the ground for the realization of utopia: historians and scientists should examine the past, see the feebleness that existed there and only through such kind of analysis was it possible to achieve the future they strived for. Socialism the incorporation of “absolute truth, wisdom and justice” became the new utopia.
The ways of achieving socialism is well depicted in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels termed the doctrine of social-utopists as “eclectic socialism” and stated that the main way of achieving utopia is having “practical grounds”, that means not only testing “real events”, but also creating “real atmosphere”. According to Marxism, in the conditions of developing capitalism, when “the resistance between social production and capitalist appropriation lead to the emergence of antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat”, reaching the heights of “economic collision”, made it possible for the “productive forces to revolt against the rule of manufacturers” (www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/anti_duhring.pdf). In such case, Marxism believed that proletariat, by the means of revolution, would gain power, class difference would demolish, public property would be replaced by public property and the collectivist way of life would prevail over individualism.
Europe obsessed by the idea of freedom and scientific progress played an important role in the success of utopian genre. Many works were created full by the influence of utopian ideals: Samuel Butler’s “Erewhon”, William Henry Hudson’s “A Crystal Age”, Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward”, Theodor Hertzka’s “Freeland: A Social Anticipation”, William Morris’ “News from Nowhere”, Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Man under Socialism”, Herbert George ←21 | 22→Wells’ “Expectation” and “A Modern Utopia”. These utopias were the innovatory assimilation of traditional utopia.
It is obvious that neither Marx, nor Engels and their followers saw their doctrine as a utopian mysticism: utopia seemed to be an illusion, whereas their ideas looked like a project that could have worked. As Andrei Valitski noted wittily, “Thomas More’s utopia would have the same characteristics even if the author had called it a ‘Comic sketch’ ” (Lanin 1993: 15). The title was of secondary importance, but what mattered most was the essence of the doctrine itself. In any case, utopia was the unity of the diversity of world outline, deliberate way of thinking, offering a new social perspective and innovative vision for humanity. It was clear that utopia, armed with the idea of equality, dismantling deconstruction of state structure, brotherhood, unity, freedom, collective way of life, and scientific progress, from the mechanism of protection from an unwanted reality, became an active project equipped with a reformative function and exactly with this status approached the 20th century. The only feasible project of utopia was Socialism, and it was Socialism that became the first realized utopia, established in Russia by Bolshevik Revolution. And it fully demonstrated the totalitarian nature of the “Idyll”, implemented in “Good time” and “Good place”.
What was the world intellectual opinion? Where was the energy found to fight against it? How did humanity confront the fear of utopia and then the fact of utopia?
Anti-utopia became the main obstacle for utopia, and it happened far before the Bolshevik Revolution.
1.2. Utopia and Anti-Utopia– from Ambivalent Unity to Conceptual Determination
Anti-utopia, negative utopia, utopia in a negative context – the intrigue lies in the term itself and gives evidence about the ambiguity of the concept. It is obvious, that the development of anti-utopia as a concept and genre has close ties with utopia: Whereas utopia is a dream about an ideal society, anti-utopia confronts any societal structure, which exists in order to achieve utopian harmony. To put it in other words, anti-utopia contains utopia, despite the clash and struggle between them. N. Berdyaev writes:
Utopias play an important role in history. They define the nature of humans. An Individual wounded and encircled by the wickedness of the universe, has the desire to live in a perfect and harmonious society or at least dream about such a place. But the problem that arises is the realization of such Utopia…Utopias are being created in a disfigured way. The main characteristic of Utopia is unity. Utopia tries to avoid breaking ←22 | 23→up and it should try to achieve unity. Therefore, Utopia is always totalitarian in the existing world order and thus totalitarianism is always utopian. (Berdyaev 1995: 353–354)
How much does imagination correspond to reality? To what extent is a utopian idea compatible with human nature and character? Is it possible to achieve idyll in the world? Is the realized ideal order the one that humans were striving for?
Among the problems the intellectual thought faced on the way of achieving utopia were at first fear and then bitterness: this charming, elevated dream with time turned into an organized dictatorship and a realized nightmare, a brutal misunderstanding that deprived humans of such a vital thing as freedom. “Extra-temporal Golden Age” encoded in the myth of Cronos transformed first into Plato’s static order in his “Ideal State”, then evolved into More’s and Campanella’s organizational dictate and Bacon’s scientific pragmatism, later – conceptually reconciled with Social utopists’ ideas of collectivism, Marxist concept of all equality and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and, finally, the Socialist symbiosis model was realized in Russia in the first half of the 20th century. Bolshevism became the first realized utopia and it fully revealed the total discrepancy between the ideal and the reality: “Earthly Idyll” was characterized by negative activities – bloodshed, casualties and tragedy.
In this realm of realized utopia, the intellectual thought facing the threat of the loss of individualism and forced collective happiness began to search for an alternative. The only conceptual alternative to utopia seemed to be anti-utopia. Anti-utopia rose as a phoenix from the ruins of revolution and became a fearsome factor for utopia, the logical offspring of history, whose main aim was to abolish the myth of utopia.
I no doubt share the idea that the scholar develops above about the general mission of anti-utopia; however, I cannot agree with the chronological evolution of the definition. Anti-utopia as a genre appeared in the 20th century, but it emerged earlier, is stretched across a great time span and shows an interesting paradigm of development.
Anti-utopia from the very beginning formed ties with utopia and, before confronting it as a counter-genre, they together had a difficult way of development. Starting from Hesiod’s ‘Golden Age’, moving on to the ‘Iron Age’, with its pain and tragedy, Republic by Plato, followed the sarcastic comedies by Aristophanes, the utopian ideas suggested by More, Campanella and Bacon were opposed by Machiavelli, Hobbs, Mandeville and Swift. Anti-utopia did not form as a counter-positional system suddenly that could clearly see the illusory nature of utopia.
←23 | 24→
The resistance between utopia and anti-utopia can be seen on the example of Cronus. Cronus, at the same time, shares the comic symbiosis of positive and negative, where positive (great reign, Golden Age and secured life) is the direct result of the negative (castration of his father, eating his own children) and vice versa – negative is the inevitable background of the positive. From the myth of Cronus to the scientific utopia of Wells, ambivalence became the main characteristic of the relation between utopia and anti-utopia: The dualistic structure is shared not only by common moralistic formula of utopia – “realistic society”/“ideal society”, but also with the model of the ideal society itself – “ideal order”/“the sinful nature of humans”. This irrelevance can be noticed in Plato’s Republic posing a great dilemma for the philosopher, who was fascinated by the process of search for an ideal structure. This was an opposition that caused the separation of model of ideal world from the real one in Christian world outline. It was also the reason why all the main characters in utopian works are in struggle with the brutal elements, so to say a quarrel against the remnants of reality.
It is noteworthy that the inter-structural dualism of utopia logically transforms into perceptual dualism. The understanding of utopian text or perception is as ambivalent as the material itself. As the eminent Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye notes in “Varieties of Literary Utopias” (1965), even if the text seems a serious utopia for the author, for some readers it may appear to be just a satirical application. So the utopian text, with its internal struggle, makes it possible to perceive it from an oppositional standpoint. The ambivalent relationship between utopian and contra-utopian texts, where the border is rather slim, what makes it difficult to establish the superior one, is exactly depicted in the satiric works of the ancient era, which are a synthesis of positive and negative elements. If we conditionally name positive as utopian and negative – anti-utopian, we can deduce that satire was the unity of the struggle between utopian and anti-utopian motifs. The aesthetic and ethic projection of satire of the ancient era meant to show a better alternative on the background of bad and unacceptable by the means of sarcasm. As time passed the elements of utopia and anti-utopia started to separate, striving to achieve independent literary forms, but this process was neither fast, nor radical.
The comic writers of the classical period, namely Aristophanes and Lucan can be seen as the first opponents of utopia. Their works, of course, are not a classical example of utopia, but in many comedies, we come across anti-utopian motifs, not as an independent literary model, but as a negative necessity for the realization of the utopian model. From an early stage, anti-utopia has been received as ←24 | 25→an auxiliary satirical means, serving as the ideological and practical commentaries of utopia.
In Aristophanes’ and Lucan’s work, satire can be seen as the catalyst element for utopian models. The aim is clear: To achieve the positive and sedative by means of devastating criticism.
Prominent Georgian scholar, Simon Kaukhchishvili in his work “The History of Greek Literature” (1950) divides Aristophanes’ comedies into three groups, according to its themes:
1. Comedies, where Aristophanes opposes war;
2. Comedies, where Aristophanes attacks democratic political and public figures;
3. Comedies, where Aristophanes depicts the search for a Utopian world (Kaukhchishvili 1950: 389).
Professor Kaukhchishvili considered the comedies “Women in Tents”, “Plutus” and “The Birds” to represent the third typology. I believe that in these comedies utopian theme showed itself as the satirical application model of utopian structure.
The main aim of Aristophanes in the plays listed above is to achieve ideal, harmonious and utopian society, which can be proved on the example of the author’s sympathy toward the program of Praxagora (“Women in Tents”), the actions of Plutus (“Plutus”) and the ideal city in the sky (“The Birds”). But at this stage our main sphere of interest is not the final result of the author, but the main process of achieving this aim: Aristophanes, on one hand, strives to achieve order, but, at the same time, appears to be a rebellious thinker against order. Anti-utopian motif here is a relevant concept of “undesirable reality” and has the meaning of “bad”, whereas the utopian motif “desirable reality” is the same analogous model of “good”. The anti-utopian text – Aristophanes’ political satire, directed toward statesmen, any type of criticism of dishonesty or a reflection of realistic manner – in this case, the primary structure is a basis on which the utopian text should be placed as a secondary structure, or the additional one.
The symbiosis of unity between utopia and anti-utopia can be seen in Lucan’s satirical texts as well, although it is more or less isolated in this very case. The criticism of reality, which includes the flagellation of existing religious dogmas, philosophical schools and social rules, is accompanied by sharp criticism of the Hellenistic utopian model, as a popular dream. But the images depicting ideal being are so persuasive that they had a great impact on the utopists of the Middle Ages.
The understanding of utopia and anti-utopia as a unity, but component elements of ambivalent construction, changed in the Stoic era, mainly in the doctrine ←25 | 26→of Seneca. From this point of view, our sphere of interest is Seneca’s work “Simple living benefits”, where the philosopher questions the perspective of forming an ideal society and outlines the main road that should define the striving of mankind for idyll.
All men, brother Gallio, wish to live happily, but are dull at perceiving exactly what it is that makes life happy: and so far is it from being easy to attain the happiness that the more eagerly a man struggles to reach it the further he departs from it, if he takes the wrong road; for, since this leads in the opposite direction, his very swiftness carries him all the further away. We must therefore first define clearly what it is at which we aim: next we must consider by what path we may most speedily reach it, for on our journey itself, provided it be made in the right direction, we shall learn how much progress we have made each day, and how much nearer we are to the goal towards which our natural desires urge us. But as long as we wander at random, not following any guide except the shouts and discordant clamors of those who invite us to proceed in different directions, our short life will be wasted in useless roaming, even if we labor both day and night to get a good understanding. Let us not therefore decide whether we must tend, and by what path, without the advice of some experienced person who has explored the region which we are about to enter, because this journey is not subject to the same conditions as others; for in them some distinctly understood track and inquiries made of the natives make it impossible for us to go wrong, but here the most beaten and frequented tracks are those which lead us most astray. Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not whither we ought, but whither the rest are going.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I
The quotation cited above is a clear example that Seneca essentially drops a boundary between the “collective happiness” characteristic of utopia, the general idea of unity and sees it as an illusion impossible to fulfil:
Now nothing gets us into greater troubles than our subservience to common rumor, and our habit of thinking that those things are best which are most generally received as such, of taking many counterfeits for truly good things, and of living not by reason but by imitation of others. This is the cause of those great heaps into which men rush till they are piled one upon another. In a great crush of people, when the crowd presses upon itself, no one can fall without drawing someone else down upon him, and those who go before cause the destruction of those who follow them. You may observe the same thing in human life: no one can merely go wrong by himself, but he must become both the cause and adviser of another’s wrongdoing. It is harmful to follow the march of those who go before us, and since everyone had rather believe another than form his own opinion, we never pass a deliberate judgment upon life, but some traditional error always entangles us and brings us to ruin, and we perish because we follow other men’s examples: we should be cured of this if we were to disengage ourselves from the herd; but as it is, the mob is ready to fight against reason in defense of its own mistake… ←26 | 27→When we are considering a happy life, you cannot answer me as though after a division of the House, “This view has most supporters;” because for that very reason it is the worse of the two: matters do not stand so well with mankind that the majority should prefer the better course: the more people do a thing the worse it is likely to be.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I
Then what road should the person take who is desperate to find happy and careless life? Where is the solution to the problem? It should be the variety of action, believes Seneca, which is more worthy for people, not the one that we come across at every corner; we should concentrate on what will fill us with the possession of everlasting happiness, and not what the veritable enemy – the mass – likes. In the mob, I do not mean only the poor people, but the rich as well…. soul is the only one responsible for spiritual dignity.
Against the background of ancient interpretation of utopia, Seneca’s conception can be distinguished according to its categorical tone: He not only questions the issues of utopian collectivism as an empty structural probability but also reveals the alternative route of achieving “ideal happiness”, the road to personal and spiritual self-determination. It is spirituality that represents the only model for happy life, according to Seneca, which is different from how the ancient philosophers perceived utopia. What is the difference between such a human and others? – asks Seneca, – that some of them are softly tied, whereas the others are more tightly tied and the third are so firmly chained that they cannot even move. The person who achieves some state of spiritual perfection is not disturbed by chains: He, of course, is not free, but has achieved the right of freedom.
The emerging paradigm of “careless life” in Seneca’s doctrine, individual values – spiritual perfection – freedom is in opposition to the classical model of utopia: Equality – collectivism – good or right governance. According to this, we can assume that Seneca’s “Simple living benefits” can be regarded as a text upholding strong anti-utopian characteristics, text where for the first time the possibility of realizing utopia was questioned, and also an alternative route was suggested on how to gain happiness, through individualism.
The method of achieving “Utopian dream” was an essential problem for Seneca, as well as the Christian world outline. From this point of view, R. C. Elliot should be quoted:
Utopia is the application of man’s reason and his will to the myth… Utopia (in the sense we are concerned with here) is man’s effort to work out imaginatively what happens – or what might happen – when the primal longings embodied in the myth confront the principle of reality. In this effort man no longer merely dreams of a divine state in some remote time; he assumes the role of creator himself. (Elliot 1970: 8–9)
←27 | 28→
What is followed by such an experiment? Destruction – assumes Christian world outline differently from the classical understanding of Utopia adding the example of the first sin. According to the biblical text of first sin, humans did not justify God’s confidence: Tasting the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, the forbidden fruit, somewhat undertook the role of Demiurge, entering the functions of the creator and as a result they deserved God’s wrath: God damned Adam and Eve, leaving them without the happiness of eternal life, made them mortals and threw them out of the garden of Eden. “The Garden of Eden” can be identified with the “Golden Age”. Accordingly, the conclusion can be drawn out: “Ideal Happiness” is unachievable, and this is the prerogative of the Lord.
Christian ideology deepened and added content to the resistance between utopia and anti-utopia, when confronted the model of Caesar’s deprived and sinful kingdom with that of the heavenly paradise. In this regard, special attention should be paid to John, the Apostle’s “Revelation”, where the motifs of Babylon and Jerusalem are confronted. Babylon is cited as the example of the city of sins and Jerusalem as an example of the heavenly town. Unlike from Babylon, Jerusalem is the city of God, paradise on Earth, where God will always accompany the risen men: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21: 4). https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21%3A4&version=ESV
As one of the continuations and deepening of the concept of the “Revelation”, “The City of God” by Saint Augustine can be regarded, where the philosopher draws a boundary between religious aims those of the earthly goals. In “City of God” he clearly states his concern by the fact that people worry too much about the problems of the “Earthly City”, which in the understanding of the bishop of Hippo Regius, will result in the separation of humans from “City of God”. Saint Augustine is sure that the only mission of humans during life is to purify themselves from sins, because the only “real life” is in heaven. The end of the earthly pilgrimage is Doomsday, day, which will free the worthy ones from the shackles of the “Earthly City” and will shift to “The City of God”, where St. Augustine suggests, that after this day alterations will occur by the destruction of old mankind, and humans will have angel-like lives (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45304/45304-h/45304-h.htm)
The deep theological modification of this issue can be seen in the text of “The Wisdom of Balahvar”:
Your deeds excel the nature of mortal man, 0 blessed king; for like some disembodied being you withstood the invisible foe in those impassable desert places. You made haste ←28 | 29→like a deer towards the well-spring and wandered from place to place, 0, blessed one, seeking for your good teacher Balahvar; and when you had found him, you glorified God. In place of transitory kingship, O blessed one, you chose the glory which is permanent and unending, and you rejoice in unspeakable and eternal happiness. (The Wisdom… 1960: 233)
The negative text clearly has a coordinating function here: Heavenly paradise or the positive texts are achieved not only through the confrontation with the negative text, but through victory over it. The pathos of the Christian world outlook in connection with reality can be seen as an active anti-utopia.
The increase of general activity in the attitude toward anti-utopia can clearly be seen in the Middle Ages. Here, first of all, the “Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli should be highlighted, then comes “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes, “Fable of the Bees” by Bernard Mandeville, and “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift.
The anti-utopian motifs found ties on the one hand with the political and economic processes of medieval Europe, and on the other – the dogmatism of the Church and the scientific tendencies that were beginning to develop. The “Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli should be mentioned in this context. What is important for us in this case is that Machiavelli based on the real grounds, with his argumentative and practical discussions confronted Utopia, which was so widespread and popular in his day:
For many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, writes Machiavelli, – because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
This interesting aspect of Machiavellianism could be stated thus: utopia does not exist; we should free ourselves from vain dreams and fantasies, stand solidly on the ground and see the filthiness of the world! The only solution that Machiavelli sees in this demoralized condition is a strong leader, “Half man and Half Beast”, who if necessary, by using all means, will achieve all aims. A tyrant will awaken the people from dreams and will create a strong state, where aims are justified.
The significant anti-utopist mood of Machiavellianism is directed against any naive illusion, excluding any practical possibility of achieving utopia in real life and sees a strong state, governor and law as a basis of human happiness. In other words, Machiavellianism is an analytical study research of real humans and the real world. The utopian paradigm of the Middle Ages: non-existing place – ideal social structure – happiness is confronted by Machiavelli: real place – strong ←29 | 30→social structure – tyranny – normal life. Despite the sharp anti-utopian attitude, the “Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli cannot be regarded as a complete, formed type of as anti-utopian text, because of one important condition: Machiavelli justified dictatorship and neglected the care for humans in the terms of dictatorship. He left open this issue for the future generation.
The “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes can be regarded as an interesting manifestation of anti-utopian thinking, where the English philosopher and thinker of the 16th century developed a manifesto of how society should be organized and compared it with the archetype of Leviathan, the biblical monster. Total skepticism toward utopia is clearly shown in this work by Hobbes. What is more, Hobbes saw the idea of equality, which is one of the cornerstones of utopian understanding, as a hindrance and disaster in the human society. According to Hobbes, out of the equality of possibilities, the equality of hopes appears in achieving the goal. Therefore, two people, who want one and the same thing, but is clear that both will not acquire the same thing, become rivals (See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Penguin Books, 1981). So, where does the solution lie? In strong governance – declares Hobbes.
Bernard Mandeville’s “Fable of the Bees”, an allegorical satire about the voluntary turnover of ideal society proved as a continuation of Hobbes realistic anti-utopia. But the tendency of anti-utopia as a special literary unit is powerful in “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift.
The theme of voyage and the motif of discovering “new lands”, as an object of satire, clearly shows the sceptic and cynic attitude of the author toward the ideals and themes, with which the utopian works were soaked. Did the utopist call for travel? Gulliver went on a journey. Did the utopist strive to discover “ideal place”, that is “far away”? Gulliver approached unknown lands – the world of Lilliput, Brobdingnag and Glubbdubdrib. And what does Gulliver discover there? He finds out that utopian island, countries and states are just vain dreams and illusions, which is impossible to reach in reality: will it be the country of Lilliput, or the land of Brobdingnag or any other “foreign land”, people everywhere obey the beguilements of the world – war, rivalry, hypocrisy and greediness. This sad fact cannot be eliminated either by the rivalry between parties, which is described in detail in Part I of the book, or the educated monarch, with whom the author sympathizes in Part II, or the republican governance described in Part III. In the last part of the book, frustrated by human actions, Swift turns back to the past, the patriarchal system, but this is not the traditional patriarchal society. Swift’s dream is ironical skepticism, ugly skepticism, which is equal to the primitive existence of mankind, where savage people obey horses and feel quite well. Some critics argue that the Land of Houyhnhnms is the imagined ←30 | 31→utopia of Swift, stating that the work permeated with anti-utopian attitude is still reduced to utopian illusion. However, I believe that this assumption is wrong: It is the Land of Houyhnhnms that ends Swift’s illusions (if he had any illusions) about humanism, equality and the real implantation of unity. The tragic split between Swift’s creative individualism and the norms underpinned in the society is visible. At the end of the book Swift openly castigates the utopists:
Thus, gentle reader, I have given thee a faithful history of my travels for sixteen years and above seven months: wherein I have not been so studious of ornament as of truth. I could, perhaps, like others, have astonished thee with strange improbable tales; but I rather chose to relate plain matter of fact, in the simplest manner and style; because my principal design was to inform, and not to amuse thee.
https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/gullivers-travels.pdf
In Swift’s work, not only the destruction of utopian ideals and the sarcastic revealing of human flaws is interesting for us, but also the European reality and the critique of scientific progress.
In Part III of “Gulliver’s Travels” Swift actively confronts the scientific utopism suggested by Francis Bacon and the theoretic scientific attitude developed by Bacon’s followers. Swift laughs bitterly at the scholars on the Island of Laputa, who, according to him, are engaged in totally useless and vain researches. Unlike other utopist thinkers, for Swift the rapidly developing science is not a positive future perspective, but an end, a fearful tendency, which pushes humans toward slavery.
“Gulliver’s Travels” by Swift finally revealed the breaking of the ambivalent integrity of utopia and anti-utopia and showed that anti-utopia strove to become a separate form of genre.
1.3. The Philosophical and Literary Predecessors of Anti-Utopian Genre
In the works of the 18th and 19th centuries, it became clear that among the intellectual circles, to put it mildly, show their distrust of utopian doctrines. This distrust can be defined as the emerging deep skepticism toward the growing social and industrial revolutions, global doubt and Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” can be seen as the fist, serious expression of this concern.
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus”, as seen in the title of the book demonstrates its connection with the archetype of Prometheus and Faust. Like Prometheus and Faust, Frankenstein sacrifices his soul for the sake of understanding hidden knowledge and, therefore, significantly violates the ethics ←31 | 32→and norms of human behavior. The devaluation of human characteristics and traditions causes nemesis: Frankenstein creates a monster, which destroys not only Frankenstein himself, but those who are dear to him.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not a conservative remises of the mythological prototype; he is the contemporary Prometheus, and he is the modern scientist obsessed by modernist ideas, not a simple reincarnation of an old alchemic. The young Frankenstein greedily masters the medieval occult traditions; however, he combines them with the modern scientific theories and methods. In other words, the old meets the new, myth integrates with industrial epoch. But who stands behind the curtains? A scientist and a monster. The one and the other is an artificial mixture of old and new, a synthetic symbiosis, which justifies the society’s mechanic concept about humans, obsessed by scientific development.
Frankenstein’s monster clearly expresses not only the concern, but also the fear toward the mechanic image of humans. Mary Shelley’s monster is a realization of the delirious opinions expressed in the mechanistic philosophy of Bacon and other social utopists, a prophetic accomplishment.
But who created the monster? Frankenstein, a genius scientist, obsessed with ambition and who through sacrilege appropriated God’s creative function. Myth destroyed the boundaries of reality, so the utopian dream was accomplished as a real project. And what was the result? Chaos and despair; utopian promise about the perfection of man became a nightmare. The disappointment with utopian hopes clearly identified anti-utopian tendencies. The work by Mary Shelley gave rise to the fundamental theme in literary anti-utopia: Submitted to the mystical power to reveal and determine the human control, which often suppresses and destroys every bit of humanism.
The anti-utopian pathos seen in “Frankenstein” deepened in the philosophical and literary thinking of the first half of the 19th century. The object of attack now became not only the idea of scientific progress, but the newly evolved ideas of democracy, liberalism and socialism, which fed and nourished the utopian doctrines. The problem of initial significance was not only the violence and terror created by means of contemporary achievements, but also the loss of individualism in the space of “collective” and “universal”. The deep projection of this danger which mankind was facing became particularly important in the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Søren Aabye Kierkegaard.
In the doctrines of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, an aggression toward positivism and mechanical thought can be seen, the issue of the ability of free action and creative will alongside with the problem of losing individual thinking was raised. The new philosophical movement, which was later, called ←32 | 33→“Philosophy of Will”, confronted not only the classical understanding of philosophy, but also the philosophical tendencies of positivism. Unlike the utopist-optimist attitudes of contemporaneity, a general feeling of pessimism, a deep skepticism toward reality occurs. The main aim of the leaders of the “Philosophy of Will” was to change the idea of outer-determination with that of self-determination, or the traditional and rational outlook on the relation of “Self and the World”, which transforms into the position of in-look, based on the primacies of feeling and perception. The projection of inner and from within inside puts the individual aspects of the self forward, settles the condition during which a human is not content with the existing, reinforced and original reproduction of the world and concentrates on his individual possibility and realization of his/her perspectives.
Arthur Schopenhauer in his major work “The World as Will and Representation” (1819) persuasively implements the main statute of the new philosophical movement: “The world is my idea”. In Schopenhauer’s doctrine, the universe is not only the object of a person’s cognition, but also his perception, with all its forms – time, space and objects. Science, believes Schopenhauer, which was so highly praised by the social-utopists, cannot claim the understanding of knowledgeable object: Science of any type obeys “base will” and is within the framework of cognitive universe. Special scientists are unable to break-through this framework. Therefore, how can we understand the secrets of the universe? As the only way of dealing with this problem, Schopenhauer sees the transition from “Kingdom of Cognition” to “Kingdom of Will” or paying attention from outer world toward the “Self”, subject, which has the self-conscious. To put it in other words, universe cannot be understood through humans, but humans through the cognition of universe. As modern Georgian philosopher and the historic of philosophy, Tamaz Buachidze notes: “Human for Schopenhauer is the micro-scheme whose understanding will help us to solve the riddle connected with the macrocosm – the universe” (Buachidze 1986: 24). The individual has the will which according to Schopenhauer does not obey the “base will”, or the logic, reasonable it blindly and unconsciously strives for existence, toward life. Everything strives and seeks for existence, to the organic, life – and then toward the strengthening of it, states Schopenhauer. But the blind inertia of Will, meaningless aspiration gives a pessimistic scope to the philosophical anthropology of Schopenhauer. “Human is understood, as a being, whose strivings and aspiration has no end, he cannot stop, be content with this achievement, or rest” (Buachidze 1986: 43). Human Life is a constant hesitation between “Will” and “Content”. “Will” is a torture, because it gives the feeling of imperfection, “Content” brings sadness, because it is full of emptiness. And everything is repetitive: “Content” ←33 | 34→is accompanied by torture, and the other way around. Therefore, human life is a constant hesitation between torture and boredom. For Schopenhauer, human is not an ordinal individual happy with the collective style of living, but is a lonely sufferer, a victim, who is seeking for happiness, and happiness means liberation from suffering. Schopenhauer sees suffering as the main sign of existence, punishment, that mankind has deserved. But how can man get rid of this torturing universe? Schopenhauer sees the only way of getting rid of this problem in the deep projection of the soul – “Ascetism” – man should turn his back to the world, space and existence – achieve “the denial of Will, true peace and the state of the absence of desire and will”, to transit to the highest condition of human existence – ascetics.
The individual phenomenon of the human being, his relation toward the universe and the pessimistic-melancholic perception of relation is more revealed and developed in an original way in the doctrines of Kierkegaard.
The philosophy of Kierkegaard is a debate with German idealism, namely formed as an antagonist relation toward the philosophy of Hegel. For Kierkegaard, as a new type of thinker, Hegel’s style of “Objective Thought” is totally inadmissible, who according to Daniel the Prophet created “Scientific Philosophy” and finally buried in oblivion the thinker as a subject. If “for Hegel an individual is accidental and human destination is viewed as overcoming the individual, the proper, the intimate and uniting with the universal” (Buachidze 1986: 91), for Kierkegaard a human is first of all an individual, whose main virtue is that he is unique. Unlike Marx, whose dialectics also developed by rejecting Hegel’s philosophy, Kierkegaard developed his theory toward the perception of human nature. “According to the Danish philosopher, the more a person is ‘himself’, the more perfect he is. An individual has a life of his own which history cannot touch – it is his personal sphere of choice and decision, – the ‘either…or sphere’ ” (Buachidze 1986: 91). Kierkegaard’s theory is a struggle to save human individuality, a struggle against totalitarian tendencies apparent in the European society of his time that neglected the individual and individuality. Kierkegaard’s aim is to re-discover the individual and to save him. He views approaching God, living in accord with God, faith and pious life as the only possible way to save mankind trapped in the tragic reality.
According to Kierkegaard, mankind, which is burdened with the first sin, must return to God. But Kierkegaard calls “paradoxical” such a liaison between eternal and historic Paradox, for him is “a passion to think” and serves the ultimate freedom of the individual. Paradoxical thinking is the relevant process of the decline of standards, the act of freedom, when a person transforms into a new quality. “His belief is his personality – individual, subjective” (Buachidze ←34 | 35→1986: 99). Kierkegaard seeks the scales of human faith and freedom in the depths of individualism. Noticeable Georgian philosopher and the historic of philosophy, Guram Tevzadze notes, that Kierkegaard believes:
The interrelation of many interior decisions creates a unity that has lost its internality and obeys inevitability. The actions of free men become a part of the unavoidable order of things. So the actor himself does not know what will follow this action. By this aspect a person is being equalized to a thing. This mass existence of a human, for Kierkegaard, means becoming anonymous and immoral. (Tevzadze 1970: 506)
Only self-realization breeds belief in humans, accordingly he frees himself from obedience and transfers to infinity. At this time, Kierkegaard believes, a human surrounded with the forces of existence, becomes imprisoned by trepidation, a great feeling, which underlines the alienation of the individual in real space, and indicates his high destination in the world of endless freedom: only “there”, in God’s Paradise is ideal achievable.
The developing tendencies of protest against collectivism and mass-psychology, full of radical aggression, can be seen in Nietzsche’s philosophy. The cardinal themes in his philosophy, the tragic subjects like “Nihilism” and “the Death of God”, depicted the crisis in European society with thorough precision. Buachidze writes:
Nietzsche’s philosophy is full of the pathos of destruction. He wants to destroy every idol of the European civilization, abolish the foundation of values, which throughout centuries were the highest and strongest measures of human actions. In traditional moral and Christian religion, he sees the symptoms of decline, in modern man – degradation. (Buachidze 1970: 25)
The philosophical aggression of Nietzsche is the background of the ugly reality. The society full of future illusions and scientific progress deserves only irony on behalf of the philosopher. Nietzsche actively opposes “Dionysian creator”, the man grown out of the mythological world, which in itself unites the pessimism and viability characteristic of Dionysian and Apollonian initial and “Theoretical human”, man full of scientific aspirations, a symbiosis of logic and rationality and powerfully invades the world. Nietzsche favors the “Dionysian creator” and categorically confronts the pressure of scientific pragmatism and absolutism, because he believes that, such absolute science means the end of intimate autonomy, the individuality of man, the methodical and ruthless integration of him. For Nietzsche, the Mass is an amorphous concept, a vague copy of humanity, the blind force of history and its tool. The aim of history and culture, according to him, is not the mass and mass-psychology, but human and the creation of the “highest example” of humanity. The tragic themes in Nietzsche’s ←35 | 36→philosophy are caused by the search of humans and the ways of human survival. “The ideal world has been demolished – believes the philosopher, - World is left without support. Human is left disoriented; he is left to his own. He does not know what he is living for, where is he going, or how to justify either his actions or his thoughts. He is alone, without any prospects, hopeless” (Buachidze 1970: 76). Ideal values decline, “God is dead, the values justified through God’s existence, and which were acceptable for mankind, decline in value. This is a sign that at our doorsteps ‘he most terrible guest – Nihilism’ has arrived. Nietzsche’s phrase – ‘God is Dead’ – expressed not an outline of an atheist, but the deep personal tragedy of the philosopher, which has grown out of “the inner logic of spiritual life of European humanity in the context of historical actions” (Buachidze 1986: 76). The distinct tendencies in European society, according to Nietzsche, destroy the personal origins in humans and calls for community life. Modern moral to Nietzsche is a community moral, anti-moral, which subdues personal dignity to collective happiness. Such moral diminishes a human, transforms him into a domestic animal, who is panicky afraid of strong temptations and feelings. Socialism and democracy of any type, according to the philosopher, clashes with the specifics of life, because equality is not the characteristic and function of life.
So where is the way out? Nietzsche casts a glance at the future and models the antipode of a modern man – super-human, who lives with new values and is an absolute personification of life’s motive power. Nietzsche’s super-human is neither “a camel”, bound with the principle “you must”, nor “a lion”, proud with the principle “I want”. He is a child, living by the principle of “playing” and he himself is the creator. The pathos of creation, permanent creation, life determined by values – this is Nietzschean way out from the dilemma.
The philosophy of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard faced antagonism from the socialist and democratic doctrines developed in the 19th century, the dominating scientific progress and the revolutionary atmosphere. Their thoughts clearly reflected not only the crisis of the epoch, but also the tragedy of a human fallen in this framework of the general crisis. “Philosophy of Will”, full of search of individualism as well as impregnated with subjectivist feelings, can be regarded as a philosophical-conceptual basis of literary anti-utopia.
Mankind was facing a danger that might come true. The doctrine of universal brotherhood, unity and equality, full of the ideas of industrialization and collectivism was on the verge of practical implementation. The mind was facing a radical choice: collective, national and scientific-technological system clearly opposed individual-private and creative system. The former was the flagship of the realized Utopia and the later – the foundation and aim of anti-utopia confronting the former.
←36 | 37→
No wonder that in this condition active anti-utopian pathos started to manifest itself: Publication of Vladimir Solovyov’s “Three Meetings” in 1899, in 1911 – Nikolai Berdyaev’s “The Philosophy of Freedom” and in 1916 – “The Meaning of the Creative Act”.
“The veritable aim of my dispute, – points out Solovyov, – is not the denial of a concrete religion, but the detection of a lie. This lie cannot be justified in any way” (Solovyov 1914: 85).
Berdyaev Specified:
Utopia is always totalitarian; totalitarianism is always utopian in the conditions of the existing world. The issue of freedom relates to it. In its essence, utopia always confronts freedom. The utopias of Thomas More, Campanella and others leave no space for freedom. It is paradoxical but freedom, free life, us the most unachievable utopia…. Exactly this effort of freedom is forgotten by social utopias, which do not obtain freedom through perfection and harmony… What is the main mistake of the socialist utopists? The social utopia of Marx, like the one suggested by Fourier, believes that the world of Caesar can become a perfect, harmonious community that is a fundamental mistake. Only Paradise can be perfect and harmonic, the world of soul and not that of Caesar. (Berdyaev 1995: 354–355)
